Value of QB in a 1 QB league

[georgetown]

I've been playing dynasty 5 years now and have always had a stud QB so I've never contemplated the need to trade one away. But now that I'm looking to trade Rodgers, the most I've heard people say he'd be worth is a mid 1st rookie pick. I would've thought he'd be worth way more.

Why is it that QBs aren't valued more in a start 1 QB, 12 team league that awards 6 pts per passing TD?

[rubber_duck]

The points awarded per TD is not nearly as important as some may think. The issue you are facing is scarcity, or the lack of scarcity. The NFL starts 32 QBs each week, your league starts 12. The talent is not nearly as scarce as at other positions. To illustrate:

NFL starting QBs: 32
League starting QBs: 12
Ratio is 32/12 = 2.667

NFL starting RBs: ~48
League starting RBs: ~30
Ratio is 48/30 = 1.6

NFL starting WRs: ~64
League starting WRs: ~30
Ratio is 64/30 = 2.133

Looking only at scarcity your league is valuing RBs highly. Of course that is assuming 1/2 of the flex starters each week are being filled by RBs ... which probably is not the case.

[georgetown]

Sheesh. I sure feel like a newb now. I've never looked at the ratios before.

So in my league, RBs should be the ones carrying the higher price tag compared to the other positions.

Where do you think a the valuation of Aaron Rodgers being a mid-first comes from? Just because that allows you to get a rookie positional player that may pan out to be a lot better?

[Goirish374]

So in my league, RBs should be the ones carrying the higher price tag compared to the other positions.

bwahahahaha...(the only position DLF posters hate more than the QB is the RB).

(ok, this is where i hear the ghost of Jules frowning disapprovingly over my shoulder to indicate i should make a substantive contribution to your experience here)

two ideas:

a) following up on rubber duck's assumption, recalculate the ratios based on 2 starting RBs per team and you get a ratio of 2.0 (48/24), putting RBs squarely between QB and WR.

b) wrt to scarcity specifically, the ratio value of RBs is offset by the "third axis of value" in dynasty: projected scoring horizon (for which we use age as a proxy). scarcity is only one element of a value calculation which, in the case of RBs, is offset by their unpredictable scoring from season to season, relatively short lifespan, higher propensity to injury and the more unpredictable replacement once injured.

wrt to QBs:

c) the most helpful concepts i have found to understand their muted value in 10-12 team start 1 QB leagues is the baseball metric "value over replacement" combined with opportunity cost. there are almost certainly QBs on the waiver in most 12 team 1 QB leagues who are *near enough* to average QB1 production that you can make up the points you lose not getting luck/rogers/newton with whatever higher tier WR/RB you got instead, electing to take a QB later.

d) just a guess, but if you look at the February ADP you see Roges has an ADP of 47.33. the nearest rookie pick at this point is the #3 off the board at 47.83, possibly generating early 1st as a value for Rogers. we can predictably expect rookies to climb in ADP as the drafts approach, which could slide a few more ahead of rogers, thereby generating your mid-1st price.

(i don't advocate trading that way, necessarily, just that it may be an explanation.)

[Cameron Giles]

The points awarded per TD is not nearly as important as some may think. The issue you are facing is scarcity, or the lack of scarcity. The NFL starts 32 QBs each week, your league starts 12. The talent is not nearly as scarce as at other positions. To illustrate:

NFL starting QBs: 32
League starting QBs: 12
Ratio is 32/12 = 2.667

NFL starting RBs: ~48
League starting RBs: ~30
Ratio is 48/30 = 1.6

NFL starting WRs: ~64
League starting WRs: ~30
Ratio is 64/30 = 2.133

Looking only at scarcity your league is valuing RBs highly. Of course that is assuming 1/2 of the flex starters each week are being filled by RBs ... which probably is not the case.

Bingo.

Also, the fact that QB's producer longer than any other position. There were seven QB1's older than 30 last season:

Brady
Palmer
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Rivers
Fitzpatrick

So why give up so much for a player like Luck or Rodgers when you can trade a third for Rivers or Eli and be fine? It's just not necessary in a 1QB league to have the youngest, most valuable QB. It looks nice and you still will win games, but when you look to cash out, those offers aren't going to look as good as you think. I wouldn't trade a mid-first for Rodgers in that format.

[lawilt]

^^^^ exactly

plus every year there's always rebuilding teams in every league with vet qbs that can be had dirt cheap so why pay high prices when you can get a bargin discount qb that would scoring a point or two less a game than the expensive option

[skip]

There is an excellent article as well that I find I have to post a couple times every year to demonstrate to owners that there is no difference in QB value in 6 vs 4 point per TD leagues.

[georgetown]

Would love to read that article. I just want to have more clarity.

[Diti51]

also remember that while QB value is greater in 6 pt TD leagues. Have to look at SIZE of league. in a 10-12 team league, top 3-5 QB probably costs to much to buy and won't give you back adequate return to sell. As stated above, cheaper to just replace your QB each year with Rivers, Carson Palmer, etc then to pay premium prices to lock up Luck.

As an example, many people were paying premium price for Luck after the 2014 big season thinking they were set at QB forever. However, injuries happen and teams struggle and I doubt Luck was the reason anybody made a run for championship in fantasy in 2015.

IF you are going to invest in a commodity in dynasty, WR is the position that holds value the longest IMO. If 10 team league and even 12 tm league its all about studs to win your league. Because lets face it, while its nice to have a great roster of Under the Helmet "potential stars" its much more fun to win the championship and talk trash for a season. Plus for every potential star that hits, there are a ton of Davante Adams, Justin Hunters, Christine Michaels who always promise excellence but don't pan out.

[skip]

Would love to read that article. I just want to have more clarity.

I can't find it atm...it always takes too long...lol. But the main idea is basically this:

Relative points change very little. i.e. the QB who throws 35 TDs vs the one who throws only 25 has a point difference over the course of the season of just 1.25 ppg. The only thing that changes within the position is that it will typically boost the non-rushing QB SLIGHTLY more than it will the rushing one. But all this really means is the QBs you have rated 8, 9, and 10 may actually go 9, 10, 8...

What doesn't change at all (and why 4 vs 6 doesn't matter) is position scarcity. There are still the same number of starters needed by each team (1) so the VALUE is based only on scarcity. The problem is once you hit that 8-10 range there may be that many (8 to 10) QBs who can post similar numbers. It is why you pay for a great talent (like Russell Wilson) but Eli Manning is as worthless as Alex Smith.

[georgetown]

So is just better to hold on to Rodgers or would I be better if getting value out of him (multiple firsts) and then just getting a solid starter?

[TheChicken]

This is where startup values and 'in-season' values differ most significantly. Picking the 1.03 rookie pick rather than Rodgers in a startup is 'acceptable' as there are still 30+ QBs available to be drafted and you can strike and pick up your preferred Manning/Rivers/Brady/Fitz combo etc etc later in the startup. Trading Rodgers for a 1.03 'inseason' is (imo) insanity unless you have already got able replacements rostered or there are some on the WW (which there are not in any of my Dynasty leagues, unless you're buying into the Chase Daniel hype). If you've recently drafted (or picked up from the WW) Bortles, Carr, Wintson, Mariota etc etc then I can see selling your stud starter as your replacement starter is acceptable, or if the trade of Rodgers includes a startable QB in return. Personally I'd keep him, unless someone wants to pay big, or your roster is horrible, or your other QBs are great.

[dlf_jules]

(ok, this is where i hear the ghost of Jules frowning disapprovingly over my shoulder to indicate i should make a substantive contribution to your experience here)

Oh bleep, I died?!?

[Pac_Eddy]

I like this topic and have seen several similar.

One thing that I think people miss is roster spaces. If I have the long term stud, I only have to carry one backup for byes or injury. If I'm trying to find the late round or lower value QB who may put up top 12 numbers, I better carry a few QBs.

And once I have several options, I need to know which matchup to play each week. I did a brief study one time and found that it was much harder than it looks to start the right QB.

I like to zig when the rest are zagging, so give me the high end QB even with the added cost. I want roster spots to churn and a no-brain starting situation.

[Phaded]

A lot of it also depends on the makeup of each team and the owners of the league.

I play in a 10-team league where we only start 1 QB (16 keepers w/ IDP, 30 player rosters). I see a lot of people around here saying that it is not even worth having a backup QB in these leagues - or to just stream your options, there will be plenty of options on the waiver wire you can use and so forth.

However, in this league - despite there being only 10 teams and 32 starting QBs in the NFL, as it stands not a single starting QB is on the wire.

Also, nobody with lowly QB options has won the championship in this league and we will be entering our 5th year. Some of these championship winners have gotten by with what would've been considering peanuts or non-elite options at RB & WR. The starting quarterbacks on championship teams (starting with most recent) were Wilson, Wilson, Brees & Brady.

In this league, QBs are actually rather valuable and trading for one is not easy. So, all leagues are different.